i'm searching for any evidence of divine creation....can anyone help me?thank you in advance.

Hi Jetzen

There isn't any.

Nor is there evidence for the existence of the Loch Ness Monster other than some photos that may or may not have doctored, and some eye witnesses who may or may not have been drunk. Time helps perpetuate the myth though, and parents in the highlands of Scotland tell tales of Nessie to their children, thus keeping the legend alive.

But searches using the latest techniques have proved fruitless. None of the photos or eye witness acoounts can be verified. And such a creature doesn't fit well with scientists' understanding of how the world works.

I suppose that if Nessie wanted to go public, she could easily do so. Until then she remains an enigma.

At the moment I'd bet my house that nessie doesn't exist, but who knows? I've been wrong before.

Nor is there evidence for the existence of the "origin of life being a happy chemical accident" other than some photos that may or may not have doctored, and some eye witnesses who may or may not have been drunk. Time helps perpetuate the myth though, and parents in the highlands of Scotland tell tales of "Piltdown Man" to their children, thus keeping the legend alive.

But searches using the latest techniques have proved fruitless. None of the photos or eye witness acoounts can be verified. And such a creature doesn't fit well with scientists' understanding of how the world works.

I suppose that if "Lucy" wanted to go public, she could easily do so. Until then she remains an enigma.

At the moment I'd bet my house that "Lucy" doesn't exist, but who knows? I've been wrong before.

Great post. I couldn't agree more.

Okay all kidding aside and welcome to JETZEN.

Also , falcone, I sent you a private message some time ago, did you get it ?

Nor is there evidence for the existence of the Loch Ness Monster other than some photos that may or may not have doctored, and some eye witnesses who may or may not have been drunk. Time helps perpetuate the myth though, and parents in the highlands of Scotland tell tales of Nessie to their children, thus keeping the legend alive.

But searches using the latest techniques have proved fruitless. None of the photos or eye witness acoounts can be verified. And such a creature doesn't fit well with scientists' understanding of how the world works.

I suppose that if Nessie wanted to go public, she could easily do so. Until then she remains an enigma.

At the moment I'd bet my house that nessie doesn't exist, but who knows? I've been wrong before.

Can you list five observable, retestable processes of evolution out of the 100s claimed? Just 5. No one has been able to do it yet, so let's see if you can.

Also Falcone, I guess with your post you are showing that you have become tired of this forum? Saying what you said to a new member here, I guess you are trying to run them off? Because if you really believed all of what you said, then that would make you a moron for wasting your time debating it.

And don't get mad. I just gave you a taste of what it's like to have what you believe called the loch ness monster.

Also Falcone, I guess with your post you are showing that you have become tired of this forum? Saying what you said to a new member here, I guess you are trying to run them off? Because if you really believed all of what you said, then that would make you a moron for wasting your time debating it.

Isn't the bolded a direct violation of the 'Strictly Enforced Rules' here?

Can you list five observable, retestable processes of evolution out of the 100s claimed? Just 5. No one has been able to do it yet, so let's see if you can.

Sorry, I'm not an expert on evolution. So, without Googling it, no.

Also Falcone, I guess with your post you are showing that you have become tired of this forum? Saying what you said to a new member here, I guess you are trying to run them off?

Fair point, as I re-read my post with creationists specs on, I can see why you might interpret it that way. There was no sinister intent.

Because if you really believed all of what you said, then that would make you a moron for wasting your time debating it.

And don't get mad. I just gave you a taste of what it's like to have what you believe called the loch ness monster.

I was using an analogy to try and put forward an (or at least, my) atheistic viewpoint. I find believers often find it hard to appreciate what non-belief is like. Using fictional constructs like Nessie sometimes helps. I didn't call what you believe the Loch Ness monster. I'm sorry you misunderstood.

Nor is there evidence for the existence of the Loch Ness Monster other than some photos that may or may not have doctored, and some eye witnesses who may or may not have been drunk. Time helps perpetuate the myth though, and parents in the highlands of Scotland tell tales of Nessie to their children, thus keeping the legend alive.

Now if you mean to say "is there evidence that god doesn't exist?" That's a different story. This is what's called shifting burden of proof. Since saying "god exists" is a positive, this it the element which would need to be proven. I've used the example somewhere already but:

"I believe there is a candy-striped moose on the far side of the moon casting happiness spells on everyone. You can't prove it doesn't exists, therefore it exists."

That's an example of misplaced burden of proof. In this example, it would be the one who says the moose exists that would have something to prove.

"I have seen pictures from the Apollo missions that show no moose on the far side of the moon. You have yet to prove the moose exists, until then, the moose does not exist."

If atheism were a religion, then you would be correct. We all place our faith in one thing or another.

Interesting. Is this assumption based on your own experience in having faith in something?

Also, I'm not sure whether atheism being a religion would prove its existence as a form of demographic. Atheism is basically not having a belief or religion. People are atheists, therefore atheism exists. It's not difficult to grasp.

People who eat apples are apple-eaters. Apple-eating is not a religion. Apple-eating still exists, though. How is that?

I would venture to say that there are a lot of things - habits, beliefs, cultures, fads, philosophies, diets, etc, that are not religions, but have words for them, and also exist.

Atheism is basically not believing in a deity. Therefore atheists believe there is no deity. Hence atheists have faith that there is no deity.

Faith is faith, regardless of who or what you place it in...

Well here are some definitions of religion I've pulled of the Net.

RELIGION

The term "religion" refers both to the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction. "Religion" is sometimes used interchangeably with "faith" or "belief system," but it is more socially defined than personal convictions, and it entails specific behaviors, respectively.

A religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.

Hmmmmm, seems to cover all the bases for everyone here registered. Even the bible acknowleges that a person can make anyone or anyTHING their god, even their belly.

Falcone, Why are you an A-theist and not also a A-loch ness monster also? It's because you truly believe Loch ness monster does not exist, but God? So you know it would be silly, as you guys imply in your own words, to be against the Loch ness monster. But not God, even though you just put God on the same level as Loch ness?

So basically you just proved you know God exist, and is not on the same level as Loch ness monster or you would have to admit that you spend a bunch of time and money (cost of your internet) debating something that you say is like the Loch ness monster. I find that ironic.

So you don't have the same faith that God does not exist like you have that the Loch ness monster don't exist?

So even by your comment, my faith is justified because even you cannot deny God. So the reason the word atheist exists is because all atheist know God exists. Because how can you be against what is not there? That would be stupid.

And then you might ask: Which god? Considering that 98% of all atheist are against the Christian God, and do not debate against any other god on any other forum. By your own actions, again you guys prove what you claim does not exist, actually does exist. Or you would have to admit to spending so much time and money going after something as stupid as the Loch ness monster. So which is it?

So all of the effort you guys put into this thread making fun of a belief, you actually prove it by your own actions. Otherwise you have to admit to something else.

Yes, quite correct. Even if that purpose is nothing, by nothing, to nothing. It's still a belief in nothingness.

Technically you can't have a belief in nothing, because it is still something. A lack of belief is not the same as a religion. You can call it a religion all you want, but that will never make it the definition of religion.

Ikester, how in the world did he just 'prove' that he knows God exists? I fail to see the logical deduction you went through.

Falcone, Why are you an A-theist and not also a A-loch ness monster also?

Well, to use your terminology, I am an a-Loch Ness monsterist.

It's because you truly believe Loch ness monster does not exist, but God? So you know it would be silly, as you guys imply in your own words, to be against the Loch ness monster. But not God, even though you just put God on the same level as Loch ness?

Correct. I do not belive that the Loch Ness monster, Yaweh, Allah, Thor, Zeus, Jupiter, Ra, Ganesha, nor your God exist.If there is any kind of intelligence behind the question of "why is there anything?", then I find it equally unlikely to be any of the above.

So basically you just proved you know God exist, and is not on the same level as Loch ness monster or you would have to admit that you spend a bunch of time and money (cost of your internet) debating something that you say is like the Loch ness monster. I find that ironic.

So you don't have the same faith that God does not exist like you have that the Loch ness monster don't exist?

I not to keen on your terminology, but basically yes. I have the same amount of faith in the existence your God as I do in the Loch Ness monster .

So even by your comment, my faith is justified because even you cannot deny God. So the reason the word atheist exists is because all atheist know God exists. Because how can you be against what is not there? That would be stupid.

I'm not 'against' God; that would indeed be stupid. I'm 'against' the various religious groups that try to impose their rules on me.

And then you might ask: Which god? Considering that 98% of all atheist are against the Christian God, and do not debate against any other god on any other forum.

Once again, I am not 'against' the Christian God, I am 'against' those who use what I consider to be a ficticious character to impact the way I live my life. I live in a society where Christianity is the dominant religion. Other religions don't have the potential impact me as much / at all. Where did you get that 98% statistic, by the way?

By your own actions, again you guys prove what you claim does not exist, actually does exist. Or you would have to admit to spending so much time and money going after something as stupid as the Loch ness monster. So which is it?

If a group of people campaigned to require me to wash in the waters of Loch Ness whilst eating haggis once a week, then you are correct - going after Nessie herself would probably be futile. I'd be better off engaging in dialogue with these Loch Ness monsterists.

So all of the effort you guys put into this thread making fun of a belief, you actually prove it by your own actions. Otherwise you have to admit to something else.

I'm not making fun of your belief, and I'm sorry you see it that way.

I don't think you understand the difference between willfully opposing a god one knows exists, opposing a god by pretending he/she doesn't exist, and actually thinking that the god doesn't exist.

Technically you can't have a belief in nothing, because it is still something.Ã‚Â

Actually, yes you can Ã¢â‚¬Å“believeÃ¢â‚¬Â in nothing, if you superimpose that believe over and above something else (or in this case give Ã¢â‚¬Å“nothingÃ¢â‚¬Â substance). The bottom line is, if you say you donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t believe in something, you are Ã¢â‚¬Å“De factoÃ¢â‚¬Â believing in itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s opposite.

A lack of belief is not the same as a religion.Ã‚Â You can call it a religion all you want, but that will never make it the definition of religion.

Again, a lack of belief in one thing is a belief in itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s opposite. And, if you defend that belief dogmatically (which I predict you are about to do) it does fit within the definition of religion.

reÃ‚Â·liÃ‚Â·gion

NOUN:

1. 1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. 2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship. 2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order. 3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader. 4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

ETYMOLOGY:Middle English religioun, from Old French religion, from Latin religi, religin-, perhaps from religre, to tie fast ; see rely

1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith